The Pronk Pops Show 1404, February 27, 2020, Story 1: All U.S. Stock Market Indices Correcting As Progressive Panic Propaganda Propagates Planet — Great Investment Buying Opportunities Ahead — Videos — Story 2: Chinese Communist Cough Containment Crisis Crashes Capitalism or Communism? — Are You Scared Yet — Not One Bit — Buy On The Correction and Hold On — Government Not The Answer — Government Is The Problem — Videos — Story 3: Coronavirus or COVID-19 Exposed America’s Heavy Reliance On China For Medicines — Trump Administration May Use Defense Production Act To Manufacture Protective Gear — What About Replacing Medicine, Drug and Ingredients Imported From Communist China By Establishing American Producers in United States As In The Past? — Video

U.S. stock indexes plunged dramatically yet again on Thursday, as the rapid spread of the coronavirus outside China deepens investor worries about growth and corporate earnings.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average plummeted 1,190.95 points, or 4.42 percent, to 25,766.64, the largest one-day point drop in history. It comes during the quickest market plunge on a percentage basis since the financial crisis of October 2008.

The Dow, S&P 500 and Nasdaq all closed more than 10 percent below their recent highs. That means the market is officially in a correction, which is a normal phenomenon that analysts have said was long overdue. T

At their heart, stock prices rise and fall with the profits that companies expect to make — and Wall Street’s expectations for profit growth are sinking as more companies warn that the virus outbreak will hit their bottom lines.

Trader Peter Tuchman reacts at the opening bell on the New York Stock Exchange on Thursday as the Dow opens down another 500 points and the market enters correction territory

Adding to worries, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirmed an infection in California in a person who reportedly did not have relevant travel history or exposure to another known patient.

‘In the recent week, markets have come to realize that the outbreak is much worse and are now realistically pricing in the impact of the virus on the economy,’ said Philip Marey, senior U.S. strategist at Rabobank.

‘In that sense it’s a bit of a catching up from the relative optimism that was there in the beginning when markets thought (the virus) will be contained to China with some minor outbreak outside.’

Rising fears of a pandemic, which U.S. health authorities have warned is likely, have erased about $1.84 trillion off the benchmark S&P 500 this week alone.

Industry analysts and economists continued to sound the alarm as they assessed the impact of the coronavirus, with Goldman Sachs saying U.S. companies will generate no earnings growth in 2020.

Apple and Microsoft, two of the world´s biggest companies, have already said their sales this quarter will feel the economic effects of the virus.

Microsoft’s stock lost 2.8 percent after it told investors that the virus will hurt revenue from its Windows licenses and its Surface devices.

A one-day view of the Dow Jones Industrial Average shows Thursday’s punishing losses

A five-day view of the Dow Jones Industrial Average shows the cumulative declines this week

Traders work during the opening bell at the New York Stock Exchange on Thursday. About five minutes into trading, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was down 1.8 percent

Budweiser maker AB InBev projects 10% hit to profits in first quarter due to decline in Chinese sales

The world’s largest brewer Anheuser-Busch InBev forecast a 10 percent decline in first-quarter profit on Thursday after the coronavirus outbreak hit beer sales during the Chinese New Year, sending its shares skidding.

The maker of Budweiser, Corona and Stella Artois said the virus had led to a significant decline in demand in China – both at bars and drinking at home, notably during the Chinese New Year.

AB InBev stock plunged on Thursday after the beer maker said that it expected profits to be down 10% for the first quarter due to slumping Chinese sales

The outbreak, along with an expected weaker Brazilian market, could lead to a 10 percent drop in first-quarter core profit (EBITDA) on-year, AB InBev said, adding that it expected 2020 core profit growth of between 2 percent and 5 percent, with most expansion occurring in the second half.

The Belgium-based company, which sells more Budweiser in China than in the lager’s key U.S. market, said the disease shaved up to $285 million off its revenue in China in the first two months of this year, 2.3 percent of its first-quarter group revenue last year.

Delta Airlines, which is reducing flights to South Korea because of the outbreak in that nation, fell 4.5 percent.

Bank of America slashed its world growth forecast to the lowest level since the peak of the global financial crisis.

Financial warnings also came from Budweiser maker InBev and cloud-computing company Nutanix.

The virus has now infected more than 82,000 people globally and is worrying governments with its rapid spread beyond the epicenter of China.

The price of crude oil fell 4.7 percent. The price has been falling sharply as investors anticipate that demand for energy will wane as the economy slows.

Bond yields continued sliding as investors shifted money into lower-risk assets. The yield on the 10-year Treasury fell further into record low territory, to 1.28% from 1.31% late Wednesday. Gold prices edged higher.

Medical mask makers and ‘stay at home’ companies see shares rise as investors anticipate high demand

A number of companies that could see their business jump if coronavirus reaches epidemic levels in the U.S. saw their shares rise in mid-morning trading on Thursday.

Shares of 3M, which counts surgical masks among its many products, rose 1.5 percent.

Chlorox, which makes the popular bleach brand that can be used to sterilize surfaces, was up 2.8 percent. 7

Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange in New York on Thursday

Netflix stock was up on Thursday, with investors betting that binge-watching at home could become more appealing than going out during an outbreak

Chlorox, which makes bleach that can be used to sterilize surfaces, was also up Thursday

Gilead Sciences jumped 6.4 percent, as the drugmaker said it had started two late-stage trials to test its experimental antiviral drug, remdesivir, in patients with cases of illness caused by coronavirus.

While travel stocks were punished, companies that focus on ‘stay at home’ products also saw shares rise, as investors anticipated that consumers will be more likely to avoid crowds and remain indoors.

Netflix was up 1.6 percent, with investors betting that binge-watching at home could become more appealing during an outbreak.

Teleconferencing company Teladoc, which offers remote medical consultations with doctors over the internet, surged 19.8 percent.

Story 2: Chinese Communist Cough Containment Crisis Crashes Capitalism or Communism? — Are You Scared Yet — Not One Bit — Buy On The Correction and Hold On — Government Not The Answer — Government Is The Problem — Videos —

Outbreak starts to look more like worldwide economic crisis

By ADAM GELLER, PAUL WISEMAN and CHRISTOPHER RUGABER11 minutes ago

The coronavirus outbreak began to look more like a worldwide economic crisis Friday as anxiety about the infection emptied shops and amusement parks, canceled events, cut trade and travel and dragged already slumping financial markets even lower.

More employers told their workers to stay home, and officials locked down neighborhoods and closed schools. The wide-ranging efforts to halt the spread of the illness threatened jobs, paychecks and profits.

“This is a case where in economic terms the cure is almost worse than the disease,″ said Jacob Kirkegaard, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “When you quarantine cities … you lose economic activity that you’re not going to get back.′

The list of countries touched by the illness climbed to nearly 60 as Mexico, Belarus, Lithuania, New Zealand, Nigeria, Azerbaijan, Iceland and the Netherlands reported their first cases. More than 83,000 people worldwide have contracted the illness, with deaths topping 2,800.

China, where the outbreak began in December, has seen a slowdown in new infections and on Saturday morning reported 427 new cases over the past 24 hours along with 47 additional deaths. The city at the epicenter of the outbreak, Wuhan, accounted for the bulk of both.

New cases in mainland China have held steady at under 500 for past four days, with almost all of them in Wuhan and its surrounding Hubei province.

With the number of discharged patients now greatly exceeding those of new arrivals, Wuhan now has more than 5,000 spare beds in 16 temporary treatment centers, Ma Xiaowei, director of the National Health Commission, told a news conference in Wuhan on Friday.

South Korea, the second hardest hit country, on Saturday morning reported 571 new cases, the highest daily jump since confirming its first patient in late January. Emerging clusters in Italy and in Iran, which has had 34 deaths and 388 cases, have led to infections of people in other countries. France and Germany were also seeing increases, with dozens of infections.

The head of the World Health Organization on Friday announced that the risk of the virus spreading worldwide was “very high,” citing the “continued increase in the number of cases and the number of affected countries.”

“We know containment is possible, but the window of opportunity is narrowing,” the U.N. chief told reporters in New York.

The economic ripples have already reached around the globe.

Stock markets around the world plunged again Friday. On Wall Street, the Dow Jones index took yet another hit, closing down nearly 360 points. The index has dropped more than 14% from a recent high, making this the market’s worst week since 2008, during the global financial crisis.

The effects were just as evident in the hush that settled in over places where throngs of people ordinarily work and play and buy and sell.

“There’s almost no one coming here,” said Kim Yun-ok, who sells doughnuts and seaweed rolls at Seoul’s Gwangjang Market, where crowds were thin as South Korea counted 571 new cases — more than in China, where the virus emerged. “I am just hoping that the outbreak will come under control soon.”

In Asia, Tokyo Disneyland and Universal Studios Japan announced they would close, and events that were expected to attract tens of thousands of people were called off, including a concert series by the K-pop group BTS. The state-run Export-Import Bank of Korea shut down its headquarters in Seoul after a worker tested positive for the virus, telling 800 others to work from home. Japanese officials prepared to shutter all schools until early April.

In Italy — which has reported 888 cases, the most of any country outside of Asia — hotel bookings are falling, and Premier Giuseppe Conte raised the specter of recession. Shopkeepers like Flavio Gastaldi, who has sold souvenirs in Venice for three decades, wondered if they could survive the blow.

“We will return the keys to the landlords soon,” he said.

The Swiss government banned events with more than 1,000 people, while at the Cologne Cathedral in Germany, basins of holy water were emptied for fear of spreading germs.

In a report published Friday in the New England Journal of Medicine, Chinese health officials said the death rate from the illness known as COVID-19 was 1.4%, based on 1,099 patients at more than 500 hospitals throughout China.

Assuming there are many more cases with no or very mild symptoms, the rate “may be considerably less than 1%,” U.S. health officials wrote in an editorial in the journal. That would make the virus more like a severe seasonal flu than a disease similar to its genetic cousins SARS, severe acute respiratory syndrome, or MERS, Middle East respiratory syndrome.

Given the ease of spread, however, the virus could gain footholds around the world and many could die.

“It’s not cholera or the black plague,” said Simone Venturini, the city councilor for economic development in Venice, Italy, where tourism already hurt by historic flooding last year has sunk with news of virus cases. “The damage that worries us even more is the damage to the economy.”

Europe’s economy is already teetering on the edge of recession. A measure of business sentiment in Germany fell sharply last week, suggesting that some companies could postpone investment and expansion plans. China is a huge export market for German manufacturers.

In the U.S., online retail giant Amazon said Friday that it has asked all of its 800,000 employees to postpone any non-essential travel, both within the country and internationally.

The chairman of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, said that the U.S. economy remains strong and that policymakers would “use our tools” to support it if necessary.

Larry Kudlow, the top economic advisor to President Donald Trump, told reporters that the selloff in financial markets may be an overreaction to an epidemic with uncertain long-term effects.

“We don’t see any evidence of major supply chain disruptions. I’m not trying to say nothing’s happening. I think there will be impacts, but to be honest with you, at the moment, I don’t see much,” Kudlow said.

The pain was already taking hold in places like Bangkok, where merchants at the Platinum Fashion Mall staged a flash mob, shouting “Reduce the rent!” and holding signs that said “Tourists don’t come, shops suffer.”

Tourist arrivals in Thailand are down 50% compared with a year ago, according Capital Economics, a consulting firm.

Kanya Yontararak, a clothing store owner, said her sales have sunk as low as 1,000 baht ($32) some days, making it a struggle to pay back a loan for her lease. The situation is more severe than the floods and political crises her store has braved in the past.

“Coronavirus is the worst situation they have ever seen,” she said of her fellow merchants.

Economists have forecast global growth will slip to 2.4% this year, the slowest since the Great Recession in 2009, and down from earlier expectations closer to 3%. For the United States, estimates are falling to as low as 1.7% growth this year, down from 2.3% in 2019.

But if COVID-19 becomes a global pandemic, economists expect the impact could be much worse, with the U.S. and other global economies falling into recession.

“If we start to see more cases in the United States, if we start to see people not traveling domestically, if we start to see people stay home from work and from stores, then I think the hit is going to get substantially worse,” said Gus Faucher, an economist at PNC Financial.

After the WHO raised its alert level, the agency’s Emergencies Program Director Michael Ryan called the situation “a reality check for every government on the planet.” Friday. “Wake up, get ready. This virus may be on its way.”

The Cantillon Effect

Expansionary monetary policy constitutes a transfer of purchasing power away from those who hold old money to whoever gets new money. This is known as the Cantillon Effect, after 18th Century economist Richard Cantillon who first proposed it. In the immediate term, as more dollars are created, each one translates to a smaller slice of all goods and services produced.

How we measure this phenomenon and its size depends how we define money. This is illustrated below.

What is clear is that the dramatic expansion of the monetary base that we saw after 2008 is merely catching up with the more gradual growth of debt that took place in the 90s and 00s.

While it is my hunch that overblown credit bubbles are better liquidated than reflated (not least because the reflation of a corrupt and dysfunctional financial sector entails huge moral hazard), it is true the Fed’s efforts to inflate the money supply have so far prevented a default cascade. We should expect that such initiatives will continue, not least because Bernanke has a deep intellectual investment in reflationism.

This focus on reflationary money supply expansion was fully expected by those familiar with Ben Bernanke’s academic record. What I find more surprising, though, is the Fed’s focus on banks and financial institutions rather than the wider population.

It’s not just the banks that are struggling to deleverage. The overwhelming majority of nongovernment debt is held by households and nonfinancials:

The nonfinancial sectors need debt relief much, much more than the financial sector. Yet the Fed shoots off new money solely into the financial system, to Wall Street and the TBTF banks. It is the financial institutions that have gained the most from these transfers of purchasing power, building up huge hoards of excess reserves:

There is a way to counteract the Cantillon Effect, and expand the money supply without transferring purchasing power to the financial sector (or any other sector). This is to directly distribute the new money uniformly to individuals for the purpose of debt relief; those with debt have to use the new money to pay it down (thus reducing the debt load), those without debt are free to invest it or spend it as they like.

While we delever, investment by American corporations will be timid, and economic growth will be faltering at best. The stimulus imparted by government deficits will attenuate the downturn — and the much larger scale of government spending now than in the 1930s explains why this far greater deleveraging process has not led to as severe a Depression — but deficits alone will not be enough. If America is to avoid two “lost decades”, the level of private debt has to be reduced by deliberate cancellation, as well as by the slow processes of deleveraging and bankruptcy.

In ancient times, this was done by a Jubilee, but the securitization of debt since the 1980s has complicated this enormously. Whereas only the moneylenders lost under an ancient Jubilee, debt cancellation today would bankrupt many pension funds, municipalities and the like who purchased securitized debt instruments from banks. I have therefore proposed that a “Modern Debt Jubilee” should take the form of “Quantitative Easing for the Public”: monetary injections by the Federal Reserve not into the reserve accounts of banks, but into the bank accounts of the public — but on condition that its first function must be to pay debts down. This would reduce debt directly, but not advantage debtors over savers, and would reduce the profitability of the financial sector while not affecting its solvency.

Without a policy of this nature, America is destined to spend up to two decades learning the truth of Michael Hudson’s simple aphorism that “Debts that can’t be repaid, won’t be repaid”.

Richard Cantillon (French: [kɑ̃tijɔ̃]; 1680s – May 1734) was an Irish-French economist and author of Essai sur la Nature du Commerce en Général (Essay on the Nature of Trade in General), a book considered by William Stanley Jevons to be the “cradle of political economy“.[4] Although little information exists on Cantillon’s life, it is known that he became a successful banker and merchant at an early age. His success was largely derived from the political and business connections he made through his family and through an early employer, James Brydges. During the late 1710s and early 1720s, Cantillon speculated in, and later helped fund, John Law‘s Mississippi Company, from which he acquired great wealth. However, his success came at a cost to his debtors, who pursued him with lawsuits, criminal charges, and even murder plots until his death in 1734.

Essai remains Cantillon’s only surviving contribution to economics. It was written around 1730 and circulated widely in manuscript form, but was not published until 1755. His work was translated into Spanish by Gaspar Melchor de Jovellanos, probably in the late 1770s, and considered essential reading for political economy. Despite having much influence on the early development of the physiocrat and classical schools of thought, Essai was largely forgotten until its rediscovery by Jevons in the late 19th century.[5] Cantillon was influenced by his experiences as a banker, and especially by the speculative bubble of John Law’s Mississippi Company. He was also heavily influenced by prior economists, especially William Petty.

Essai is considered the first complete treatise on economics, with numerous contributions to the science. These contributions include: his cause and effect methodology, monetary theories, his conception of the entrepreneur as a risk-bearer, and the development of spatial economics. Cantillon’s Essai had significant influence on the early development of political economy, including the works of Adam Smith, Anne Turgot, Jean-Baptiste Say, Frédéric Bastiat and François Quesnay.[6]

Biography

While details regarding Richard Cantillon’s life are scarce,[7] it is thought that he was born sometime during the 1680s in County Kerry, Ireland.[1][6] He was son to land-owner Richard Cantillon of Ballyheigue.[8] Sometime in the middle of the first decade of the 18th century Cantillon moved to France, where he attained French citizenship.[9] By 1711, Cantillon found himself in the employment of British Paymaster GeneralJames Brydges, in Spain, where he organised payments to British prisoners of war during the War of Spanish Succession.[10] Cantillon remained in Spain until 1714, cultivating a number of business and political connections, before returning to Paris.[11] Cantillon then became involved in the banking industry working for a cousin, who at that time was lead-correspondent of the Parisian branch of a family bank.[12] Two years later, thanks in large part to financial backing by James Brydges, Cantillon bought his cousin out and attained ownership of the bank.[13] Given the financial and political connections Cantillon was able to attain both through his family[14] and through James Brydges, Cantillon proved a fairly successful banker, specialising in money transfers between Paris and London.[15]

At this time, Cantillon became involved with British mercantilistJohn Law through the Mississippi Company.[16] Based on the monetary theory proposed by William Potter in his 1650 tract The Key of Wealth,[17] John Law posited that increases in the money supply would lead to the employment of unused land and labour, leading to higher productivity.[18] In 1716, the French government granted him both permission to found the Banque Générale and virtual monopoly over the right to develop French territories in North America, named the Mississippi Company. In return, Law promised the French government to finance its debt at low rates of interest.[19] Law began a financial speculative bubble by selling shares of the Mississippi Company, using the Banque Générale’s virtual monopoly on the issue of bank notes to finance his investors.[20]

Richard Cantillon amassed a great fortune from his speculation, buying Mississippi Company shares early and selling them at inflated prices.[21] Cantillon’s financial success and growing influence caused friction in his relationship with John Law, and sometime thereafter Law threatened to imprison Cantillon if the latter did not leave France within twenty-four hours.[22] Cantillon replied: “I shall not go away; but I will make your system succeed.”[22] To that end, in 1718 Law, Cantillon, and wealthy speculator Joseph Gage formed a private company centred on financing further speculation in North American real estate.[23]

In 1719, Cantillon left Paris for Amsterdam, returning briefly in early 1720. Lending in Paris, Cantillon had outlying debt repaid to him in London and Amsterdam.[24] With the collapse of the “Mississippi bubble”, Cantillon was able to collect on debt accruing high rates of interest.[25] Most of his debtors had suffered financial damage in the bubble collapse and blamed Cantillon—until his death, Cantillon was involved in countless lawsuits filed by his debtors, leading to a number of murder plots and criminal accusations.[26]

On 16 February 1722, Cantillon married Mary Mahony, daughter of Count Daniel O’Mahony [fr]—a wealthy merchant and former Irish general—spending much of the remainder of the 1720s travelling throughout Europe with his wife.[27] Cantillon and Mary had two children, a son who died at an early age and a daughter, Henrietta,[28] wife successively of the 3rd Earl of Stafford and the 1st Earl of Farnham. Although he frequently returned to Paris between 1729 and 1733, his permanent residence was in London.[29] In May 1734, his residence in London was burned to the ground, and it is generally assumed that Cantillon died in the fire.[2] While the fire’s causes are unclear, the most widely accepted theory is that Cantillon was murdered.[30] One of Cantillon’s biographers, Antoine Murphy, has advanced the alternative theory that Cantillon staged his own death to escape the harassment of his debtors, appearing in Suriname under the name Chevalier de Louvigny.[31]

Contributions to economics

Although there is evidence that Richard Cantillon wrote a wide variety of manuscripts, only his Essai Sur La Nature Du Commerce En Général (abbreviated Essai) survives.[6][32] Written in 1730,[33] it was published in French in 1755,[34] and was translated into English by Henry Higgs in 1932.[35] Evidence suggests that Essaihad tremendous influence on the early development of economic science. However, Cantillon’s treatise was largely neglected during the 19th century.[5] In the late 19th century and it was “rediscovered” by William Stanley Jevons, who considered it the “cradle of political economy”.[4] Since then, Cantillon’s Essai has received growing attention. Essai is considered the first complete treatise on economic theory,[36] and Cantillon has been called the “father of enterprise economics”.[6][37]

William Petty is considered to be one of Richard Cantillon’s greatest influences.[38]

Methodology

Cantillon’s Essai is written using a distinctive causal methodology, separating Cantillon from his mercantilist predecessors.[6][43]Essai is peppered with the word “natural”, which in the case of Cantillon’s treatise is meant to imply a cause and effect relationship between economic actions and phenomena.[44] Economist Murray Rothbard credits Cantillon with being one of the first theorists to isolate economic phenomena with simple models, where otherwise uncontrollable variables can be fixed.[45] Cantillon made frequent use of the concept of ceteris paribus throughout Essai in an attempt to neutralise independent variables.[46] Furthermore, he is credited with employing a methodology similar to Carl Menger‘s methodological individualism,[47] by deducing complex phenomena from simple observations.[48]

A cause and effect methodology led to a relatively value-free approach to economic science, in which Cantillon was uninterested in the merit of any particular economic action or phenomenon, focusing rather on the explanation of relationships.[49] This led Cantillon to separate economic science from politics and ethics to a greater degree than previous mercantilist writers.[45] This has led to disputes on whether Cantillon can justly be considered a mercantilist or one of the first anti-mercantilists,[50] given that Cantillon often cited government-manipulated trade surpluses and specie accumulation as positive economic stimuli.[51] Others argue that in instances where Cantillon is thought to have supported certain mercantilist policies, he actually provided a more neutral analysis by explicitly stating possible limitations of mercantilist policies.[52]

Monetary theory

Differences between prior mercantilists and Cantillon arise early in Essai, regarding the origins of wealth and price formation on the market.[53] Cantillon distinguishes between wealth and money, considering wealth in itself “nothing but the food, conveniences, and pleasures of life.”[54] While Cantillon advocated an “intrinsic” theory of value, based on the input of land and labour (cost of production),[55] he is considered to have touched upon a subjective theory of value.[56] Cantillon held that market prices are not immediately decided by intrinsic value, but are derived from supply and demand.[57] He considered market prices to be derived by comparing supply, the quantity of a particular good in a particular market, to demand, the quantity of money brought to be exchanged.[58] Believing market prices to tend towards the intrinsic value of a good, Cantillon may have also originated the uniformity-of-profit principle—changes in the market price of a good may lead to changes in supply, reflecting a rise or fall in profit.[59]

In Essai, Cantillon provided an advanced version of John Locke’s quantity theory of money, focusing on relative inflation and the velocity of money.[61] Cantillon suggested that inflation occurs gradually and that the new supply of money has a localised effect on inflation, effectively originating the concept of non-neutral money.[62] Furthermore, he posited that the original recipients of new money enjoy higher standards of living at the expense of later recipients.[63] The concept of relative inflation, or a disproportionate rise in prices among different goods in an economy, is now known as the Cantillon Effect.[64] Cantillon also considered changes in the velocity of money (quantity of exchanges made within a specific amount of time) influential on prices, although not to the same degree as changes in the quantity of money.[65] While he believed that the money supply consisted only of specie, he conceded that increases in money substitutes—or bank notes—could affect prices by effectively increasing the velocity of circulating of deposited specie.[66] Apart from distinguishing money from money substitute, he also distinguished between bank notes offered as receipts for specie deposits and bank notes circulating beyond the quantity of specie—or fiduciary media—suggesting that the volume of fiduciary media is strictly limited by people’s confidence in its redeemability.[67] He considered fiduciary media a useful tool to abate the downward pressure that hoarding of specie has on the velocity of money.[68]

Addressing the mercantilist belief that monetary intervention could cause a perpetually favourable balance of trade, Cantillon developed a specie-flow mechanism foreshadowing future international monetary equilibrium theories.[69] He suggested that in countries with a high quantity of money in circulation, prices will increase and therefore become less competitive in relation to countries where there is a relative scarcity of money.[70] Thus, Cantillon also held that increases in the supply of money, regardless of the source, cause increases in the price level and therefore reduce the competitiveness of a particular nation’s industry in relation to a nation with lower prices.[71] However, Cantillon did not believe that international markets tended toward equilibrium, and instead suggested that government hoard specie to avoid rising prices and falling competitiveness.[69] Furthermore, he suggested that a favourable balance of trade can be maintained by offering a better product and retaining qualitative competitiveness.[72] Cantillon’s preference towards a favourable balance of trade possibly stemmed from the mercantilist belief in exchange being a zero-sum game, in which one party gains at the expense of another.[73]

A relatively advanced theory of interest is also presented.[74] Cantillon believed that interest originates from the need of borrowers for capital and from the fear of loss of the lenders, meaning that borrowers have to recompense lenders for the risk of the possible insolvency of the debtor.[75] In turn, interest is paid out of earned profits originating from the return on invested capital.[76] While previously it was believed that the rate of interest varied inversely to the quantity of money, Cantillon posited that the rate of interest was determined by the supply and demand on the loanable funds market[77]—an insight usually attributed to Scottish philosopher David Hume.[78] As such, while saved money impacts the rate of interest, new money that is instead used for consumption does not; Cantillon’s theory of interest is therefore similar to John Maynard Keynes‘s liquidity preference theory.[79]

Traditionally, it is Jean-Baptiste Say who is credited for coining the word and advancing the concept of the entrepreneur, but in fact it was Cantillon who first introduced the term in Essai.[6][80] Cantillon divided society into two principal classes—fixed income wage-earners and non-fixed income earners.[81] Entrepreneurs, according to Cantillon, are non-fixed income earners who pay known costs of production but earn uncertain incomes,[82] due to the speculative nature of pandering to an unknown demand for their product.[83] Cantillon, while providing the foundations, did not develop a dedicated theory of uncertainty—the topic was not revisited until the 20th century, by Ludwig von Mises, Frank Knight, and John Maynard Keynes, among others.[84] Furthermore, unlike later theories of entrepreneurship which saw the entrepreneur as a disruptive force, Cantillon anticipated the belief that the entrepreneur brought equilibrium to a market by correctly predicting consumer preferences.[85]

Spatial economics deal with distance and area, and how these may affect a market through transportation costs and geographical limitations. The development of spatial economics is usually ascribed to German economist Johann Heinrich von Thünen; however, Cantillon addressed spatial economics nearly a century earlier.[86] Cantillon integrated his advancements in spatial economic theory into his microeconomic analysis of the market, describing how transportation costs influence the location of factories, markets and population centres—that is, individuals strive to lower transportation costs.[87] Conclusions on spatial economics were derived from three premises: cost of raw materials of equal quality will always be higher near the capital city, due to transportation costs; transportation costs vary on transportation type (for example, water transportation was considered cheaper than land-based transportation); and larger goods that are more difficult to transport will always be cheaper closer to their area of production.[88] For example, Cantillon believed markets were designed as they were to decrease costs to both merchants and villagers in terms of time and transportation.[89] Similarly, Cantillon posited that the locations of cities were the result in large part of the wealth of inhabiting property owners and their ability to afford transportation costs—wealthier property owners tended to live farther from their property, because they could afford the transportation costs.[90] In Essai, spatial economic theory was used to derive why markets occupied the geographical area they did and why costs varied across different markets.[91]

Apart from originating theories on the entrepreneur and spatial economics, Cantillon also provided a dedicated theory on population growth. Unlike William Petty, who believed there always existed a considerable amount of unused land and economic opportunity to support economic growth, Cantillon theorised that population grows only as long as there are economic opportunities present.[92] Specifically, Cantillon cited three determining variables for population size: natural resources, technology, and culture.[93] Therefore, populations grow only as far as the three aforementioned variables allowed.[94] Furthermore, Cantillon’s population theory was more modern than that of Malthus in the sense that Cantillon recognised a much broader category of factors which affect population growth, including the tendency for population growth to fall to zero as a society becomes more industrialised.[95]

Influence

While Essai was not published until 1755 as a result of heavy censorship in France, it did widely circulate in the form of an unpublished manuscript between its completion and its publication.[96] It notably influenced many direct forerunners of the classical school of thought, including Turgot and other physiocrats.[97] Cantillon was a major influence on physiocrat François Quesnay, who may have learned of Cantillon’s work through Marquis of Mirabeau.[98] While it is evident that Essai influenced Quesnay, to what degree remains controversial. There is evidence that Quesnay did not fully understand, or was not completely aware of, Cantillon’s theories.[99] Many of Quesnay’s economic beliefs were elucidated previously in Essai,[100] but Quesnay did reject a number of Cantillon’s premises, including the scarcity of land and Cantillon’s population theory.[101] Also, Quesnay recognised the scarcity of capital and capital accumulation as a prerequisite for investment.[99] Nevertheless, Cantillon was considered the “father of physiocracy” by Henry Higgs, due to his influence on Quesnay.[102] It is also possible that Cantillon influenced Scottish economist James Steuart, both directly and indirectly.[103]

Cantillon is one of the few economists cited by Adam Smith, who directly borrows Cantillon’s subsistence theory of wages.[6][104] Large sections of Smith’s economic theory were possibly directly influenced by Cantillon, although in many respects Adam Smith advanced well beyond the scope of Cantillon.[105] Some economic historians have argued that Adam Smith provided little of value from his own intellect, notably Schumpeter[6][106] and Rothbard.[107] In any case, through his influence on Adam Smith and the physiocrats, Cantillon was quite possibly the pre-classical economist who contributed most to the ideas of the classical school.[108] Illustrative of this was Cantillon’s influence on Jean-Baptiste Say, which is noticeable in the methodology employed in the latter’s Treatise on Political Economy.[6][109]

References…

Story 3: Coronavirus or COVID-19 Exposed America’s Heavy Reliance On China For Medicines — Trump Administration May Use Defense Production Act To Manufacture Protective Gear — What About Replacing Medicine, Drug and Ingredients Imported From Communist China By Establishing American Producers in United States As In The Past? — Videos

New information on finding a coronavirus treatment

HOW DOES COVID-19 AFFECT THE BODY?

Coronaviruses (CoV) are a family of viruses that cause sicknesses like the common cold, as well as more severe diseases, such as Middle East Respiratory Syndrome and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome. A novel coronavirus (nCoV) is a new strain – one that hasn’t previously been recognized in humans. Coronaviruses cause diseases in mammals and birds. A zoonotic virus is one that is transmitted between animals and people. When a virus circulating in animal populations infects people, this is termed a “spillover event”.

How does CoVID-19 affect the body? The virus is fitted with protein spikes sticking out of the envelope that forms the surface and houses a core of genetic material. Any virus that enters your body looks for cells with compatible receptors – ones that allow it to invade the cell. Once they find the right cell, they enter and use the cell’s replication machinery to create copies of themselves. It is likely that COVID-19 uses the same receptor as SARS – found in both lungs and small intestines. It is thought that CoVID-19 shares many similarities with SARS, which has three phases of attack: viral replication, hyper-reactivity of the immune system, and finally pulmonary destruction.

Early on in infection, the coronavirus invades two types of cells in the lungs – mucus and cilia cells.

Mucus keeps your lungs from drying out and protects them from pathogens. Cilia beat the mucus towards the exterior of your body, clearing debris – including viruses! – out of your lungs. Cilia cells were the preferred hosts of SARS-CoV, and are likely the preferred hosts of the new coronavirus. When these cells die, they slough off into your airways, filling them with debris and fluid. Symptoms include a fever, cough, and breathing difficulties.

Many of those infected get pneumonia in both their lungs. Enter the immune system. Immune cells recognize the virus and flood into the lungs. The lung tissue becomes inflamed. During normal immune function, the inflammatory process is highly regulated and is confined to infected areas.

However, sometimes the immune system overreacts, and this results in damage to healthy tissue. More cells die and slough off into the lungs, further clogging them and worsening the pneumonia. As damage to the lungs increases, stage three begins, potentially resulting in respiratory failure. Patients that reach this stage of infection can incur permanent lung damage or even die. We see the same lesions in the lungs of those infected by the novel coronavirus as those with SARS. SARS creates holes in the lungs, so they look honeycomb-like. This is probably due to the aforementioned over-reactive immune response, which affects tissue both infected and healthy and creates scars that stiffen the lungs. As such, some patients may require ventilators to aid breathing.

The inflammation also results in more permeable alveoli. This is the location of the thin interface of gas exchange, where your lungs replace carbon dioxide in your blood with fresh oxygen you just inhaled. Increased permeability causes fluid to leak into the lungs. This decreases the lungs’ ability to oxygenate blood, and in severe cases, floods them so that you become unable to breathe. Sometimes, this can be fatal. The immune system’s over-reaction can also cause another kind of damage.

Proteins called cytokines are the immune system’s alarm system, recruiting immune cells to the infection site. Over-production of cytokines can result in a cytokine storm, where there is large-scale inflammation in the body. Blood vessels become more permeable and fluid seeps out. This makes it difficult for blood and oxygen to reach the rest of the body and can result in multi-organ failure. This has happened in the most severe cases of CoVid-19.

Although there are no specific treatments for coronaviruses, symptoms can be treated through supportive care. Also, vaccines are currently in development. What can you do to protect yourself from CoVid-19? Basic protocol comes down to regular hand washing, avoiding close contact with anyone coughing or sneezing, avoiding unnecessary contact with animals, washing hands after contact with animals, thoroughly cooking meat and eggs prior to consumption, and covering your mouth and nose while coughing or sneezing. Respiratory viruses are typically transmitted via droplets in sneezes or coughs of those infected, so preventing their travel stops the spread of disease.

Coronavirus to infect 70% of humanity and become new seasonal disease: Expert

The Battle of Why Rare Earths Are So Important | Fortune Global Forum 2019

Rare earth elements: what confluence? | Sean Dudley | TEDxBozeman

UPDATED February 29, 2020

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Supply Chain Update

For Immediate Release:February 27, 2020Statement From:

Commissioner of Food and Drugs – Food and Drug Administration

Stephen M. Hahn M.D.

As I have previously communicated, the FDA has been closely monitoring the supply chain with the expectation that the COVID-19 outbreak would likely impact the medical product supply chain, including potential disruptions to supply or shortages of critical medical products in the U.S.

A manufacturer has alerted us to a shortage of a human drug that was recently added to the drug shortages list. The manufacturer just notified us that this shortage is related to a site affected by coronavirus. The shortage is due to an issue with manufacturing of an active pharmaceutical ingredient used in the drug. It is important to note that there are other alternatives that can be used by patients. We are working with the manufacturer as well as other manufacturers to mitigate the shortage. We will do everything possible to mitigate the shortage.

Additional Information on Human Drugs

Since January 24, the FDA has been in touch with more than 180 manufacturers of human drugs, not only to remind them of applicable legal requirements for notifying the FDA of any anticipated supply disruptions, but also asking them to evaluate their entire supply chain, including active pharmaceutical ingredients (the main ingredient in the drug and part that produces the intended effects, e.g., acetaminophen) and other components manufactured in China.

Also, as part of our efforts, the FDA has identified about 20 other drugs, which solely source their active pharmaceutical ingredients or finished drug products from China. We have been in contact with those firms to assess whether they face any drug shortage risks due to the outbreak. None of these firms have reported any shortage to date. Also, these drugs are considered non-critical drugs.

We will remain in contact with manufacturers so that we can continue to assist them with any potential issues in the fastest way.

Medical Devices

We are aware of 63 manufacturers which represent 72 facilities in China that produce essential medical devices; we have contacted all of them. Essential devices are those that may be prone to potential shortage if there is a supply disruption. We are aware that several of these facilities in China are adversely affected by COVID-19, citing workforce challenges, including the necessary quarantine of workers. While the FDA continues to assess whether manufacturing disruptions will affect overall market availability of these products, there are currently no reported shortages for these types of medical devices within the U.S. market.

Regarding personal protective equipment—surgical gowns, gloves, masks, respirator protective devices, or other medical equipment designed to protect the wearer from injury or the spread of infection or illness—the FDA has heard reports of increased market demand and supply challenges for some of these products. However, the FDA is currently not aware of specific widespread shortages of medical devices, but we are aware of reports from CDC and other U.S. partners of increased ordering of a range of human medical products through distributors as some healthcare facilities in the U.S. are preparing for potential needs if the outbreak becomes severe.

It is important to note that no law exists requiring medical device manufacturers to notify the FDA when they become aware of a circumstance, including discontinuation of a product, that could lead to a potential shortage, and manufacturers are not required to respond when the FDA requests information about potential supply chain disruption. As with prior emergencies, the FDA has taken proactive steps to establish and remain in contact with medical device manufacturers and others in the supply chain, including hospitals and group purchasing organizations. The agency also encourages manufacturers and healthcare facilities to report any supply disruptions to the device shortages mailbox, deviceshortages@fda.hhs.gov. This mailbox is closely monitored and has proven to be a valuable surveillance resource to augment FDA efforts to detect and mitigate potential supply chain disruption.

Biologics and Blood Supply

The FDA is not aware of any cellular or gene therapies that are made in China for the U.S. market. There are no shortages of biologics to report at this time.

The potential for transmission of COVID-19 by blood and blood components is unknown at this time; however, respiratory viruses, in general, are not known to be transmitted by blood transfusion. Further, there have been no reported cases of transfusion-transmitted COVID-19.

The FDA has made information available to blood establishments and to establishments that manufacture human cells, tissues, or cellular or tissue-based products that may wish to consider additional donor screening measures in response to the COVID-19 outbreak.

Food

We are not aware of any reports at this time of human illnesses that suggest COVID-19 can be transmitted by food or food packaging. However, it is always important to follow good hygiene practices (i.e., wash hands and surfaces often, separate raw meat from other foods, cook to the right temperature, and refrigerate foods promptly) when handling or preparing foods.

Animal Drugs

There are 32 animal drug firms that make finished drugs or source active pharmaceutical ingredients in China for the U.S. The FDA has contacted all 32 firms and no shortages have been reported at this time. However, six of those firms have indicated that they are seeing disruptions in the supply chain that soon could lead to shortages. The FDA is working with these firms to help identify interventions to mitigate potential shortages.

Additional Resources

The FDA is using all our existing authorities to address COVID-19, and we welcome the opportunity to work with Congress to further strengthen our response capabilities and emergency preparedness. There are four specific proposals included in the President’s budget that would better equip the FDA to prevent or mitigate medical product shortages.

Lengthen Expiration Dates to Mitigate Critical Human Drug Shortages: Shortages of certain critical drugs can be exacerbated when drugs must be discarded because they exceed a labeled shelf-life due to unnecessarily short expiration dates. By expanding the FDA’s authority to require, when likely to help prevent or mitigate a shortage, that an applicant evaluate, submit studies to the FDA, and label a product with the longest possible expiration date that the FDA agrees is scientifically justified, there could be more supply available to alleviate the drug shortage or the severity of a shortage.

Improve Critical Infrastructure by Requiring Risk Management Plans: Enabling the FDA to require application holders of certain drugs to conduct periodic risk assessments to identify the vulnerabilities in their manufacturing supply chain (inclusive of contract manufacturing facilities), and develop plans to mitigate the risks associated with the identified vulnerabilities would enable the FDA to strengthen the supply chain by integrating contingencies for emergency situations. Currently, many medical product manufacturers lack plans to assess and address vulnerabilities in their manufacturing supply chain, putting them, and American patients, at risk for drug supply disruptions following disasters (e.g., hurricanes) or in other circumstances.

Improve Critical Infrastructure through Improved Data Sharing and Require More Accurate Supply Chain Information: Empowering the FDA to require information to assess critical infrastructure, as well as manufacturing quality and capacity, would facilitate more accurate and timely supply chain monitoring and improve our ability to recognize shortage signals.

Establish Reporting Requirements for Device Manufacturers: The FDA does not have the same authorities for medical device shortages as it does for drugs and biological products. For instance, medical device manufacturers are not required to notify the FDA when they become aware of a circumstance that could lead to a device shortage or meaningful disruption in the supply of that device in the U.S., nor are they required to respond to inquiries from the FDA about the availability of devices. Enabling the FDA to have timely and accurate information about likely or confirmed national shortages of essential devices would allow the agency to take steps to promote the continued availability of devices of public health importance. Among other things, the FDA proposes to require that firms notify the agency of an anticipated meaningful interruption in the supply of an essential device; require all manufacturers of devices determined to be essential to periodically provide the FDA with information about the manufacturing capacity of the essential devices they manufacture; and authorize the temporary importation of devices where the benefits of the device in mitigating a shortage outweigh the risks presented by the device that could otherwise result in denial of importation of the device into the U.S.

Overall, this remains an evolving and very dynamic issue. We are committed to continuing to communicate with the public as we have further updates.

We also continue to aggressively monitor the market for any firms marketing products with fraudulent COVID-19 diagnosis, prevention or treatment claims. The FDA can and will use every authority at our disposal to protect consumers from bad actors who take advantage of a crisis to deceive the public, including pursuing warning letters, seizures or injunctions against products on the market that are not in compliance with the law, or against firms or individuals who violate the law.

We know the public may have questions or concerns for the FDA as a result of this outbreak, including you and your family’s risk of exposure, or whether your critical medical products are safe and will continue to be available in the future. The FDA is working around the clock to monitor and mitigate emerging coronavirus issues through collaborative efforts with federal partners, international regulators and medical product developers and manufacturers to help advance response efforts to combat the COVID-19 outbreak.

The FDA, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, protects the public health by assuring the safety, effectiveness, and security of human and veterinary drugs, vaccines and other biological products for human use, and medical devices. The agency also is responsible for the safety and security of our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, dietary supplements, products that give off electronic radiation, and for regulating tobacco products.